Aditya G wrote:Questions are bound to be asked "how does GOI determine who is the best?". Taking UPSC and hiring by rank works at entry level. Choosing the best out of top 3 men in a million man army, each of whom have served 30-40 years in uniforms is too subjective.

The question asked is not who is best? The question is who is best in light of the factors the decision maker has put on the table. It is the factors put on the table by the government that determines who is best. These factors are not constant. They will and should change with time, threats, organization needs and indeed "comfort" of the decision maker. What we can ask from a government is to be open about these factors so that people can hold them to account on the factors chosen and the choices made in light of these factors and its eventual results.

If we ever do manage to go to integrated commands, the same questions will be asked at the command levels too. I hope GoI displays more governance at these levels also and not just the top post. In general, we will have to learn to place trust and for the government to be as transparent as possible, so that they can be held to account based on facts and results.

srin wrote:Looking at some of the MSM news articles and Ajai Shukla's blog (not just now, but also few years earlier), this is also becoming an infantry vs armoured corp debate. As an armchair corporal, what I don't get is how come the generals are so specialized ? Isn't there any rotation of officers among the different arms ?

It has happened over decades, in the old days officers from even non-combat arms were considered for command of brigades. Increasing specialisation and the tendency among different combat arms to protect their own turfs has resulted in this scenario.

.....

Brigadier h.S. Kler the commander of the unit that took Dacca was a Signals officer. The Paki officer was very upset at surrendering to him and exclaimed in Pak Army a Signals officer would never get to be a combat unit leader.

Also Gen K.S. Sunderji and Infantry Officer was one of the best Armor Div commanders as a Major General.

COAS is a political post. That's the nature of the beast. That's how it should be and that's how it is all over the world.Everybody who's shouting about 'politicizing the post' needs to understand this simple fact.The problem is that because of decades of political mismanagement we now impart negative connotations to 'politics'.We need to get better caliber men ruling our states and country, and restore our faith in politics.That trend has started and hopefully will continue.

The complacency and risk-aversion that arises in the office corps because of the assumed succession plan is the real malaise afflicting our armed forces and one that we need to fix ASAP.Because once this is fixed, the right people would automatically bubble up to the top.And even if the politicians choose the wrong person, they would be choosing the worst amongst the best!I would much rather accept that than the possibility of the most risk-averse, smooth-talking, butt-kissing officers rising to the top.

Also, someone who's a competent army commander will not automatically make a good chief.In addition to all the other qualities required of an army commander, the chief needs to also be a visionary and a transformative leader.He needs to be a diplomat (again, in the correct sense of the word).He needs to know how to handle and interact with non-military bureaucrats and technocrats.He needs to know how to earn the trust and confidence of the politicians running the country.He needs to be media savvy.In short, he needs to be a 'political' leader

Aditya G wrote:Questions are bound to be asked "how does GOI determine who is the best?". Taking UPSC and hiring by rank works at entry level. Choosing the best out of top 3 men in a million man army, each of whom have served 30-40 years in uniforms is too subjective.

Aditya to add to what Shaurya said, this appointment of Lt Gen Bipin Rawat (who is more experienced with cross-border terrorism and counter insurgency) is for the benefit of the government. More cross border surgical strikes will likely occur and the government needs someone at the helm who can translate broad policy aims (from the government) into viable military objectives. An armoured corps officer - which Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi is - will not necessarily fit that bill.

This appointment is NOT for the benefit of one man or the army. Rather this appointment is for the benefit of the govt. Once we understand that, everything else will make sense.

Aditya, we have to forgo the mindset of seniority, principle, fairness, etc, etc, etc. That is now in the past. And as long as the Congress Party harps on those factors, they will never understand what is really at stake. Now it is all about who can best achieve what the govt wants.

Allow me to use this crude example. If you are accused of murder, are you going to hire a criminal lawyer who knows the ins and outs of criminal law or will you hire a real estate lawyer to do the job? Same scenario here.

Folks, get on the Modi Revolution train if you already have not. It is long overdue.

Surya, I believe the objective is COIN and tackling Cross Border Terrorism. At least that is what I see in the appointment of Lt Gen Bipin Rawat. Like I said earlier, I do believe there will be more surgical strikes. Pakistan only understands the stick.

I would agree to the panel "in-principle" of the PM, RM and Leader of the Largest Opposition. However our present opposition leader lives in a world of utopia. The man is indecisive (like his father and his great-grandfather). I would not put that man on select-the-best-diaper panel. I am sorry, but that is the nicest thing I can say about him.

This is not about sidelining Lt Gen Bakshi or Lt Gen Hariz. But the Govt has to select the best man for the job. Angst may rightfully be there, but it is not justified. The Chief serves at the pleasure of the President of India and he/she has the right to appoint who they please at the recommendation of the ruling govt.

Surya, you may be correct. People may not buy it. But guess what, PM Modi has got the majority in Parliament. Who really cares? The Congress will cry hoarse for the next few days or weeks and then it will be back to normal.

Surya wrote:not so fast RakeshIf Modi really wants to go with merit then there needs to be some better objective and it needs to be a panel like the CVC selectionmaybe PM,RM and leader of largest oppositionthis will remove the political element outthere are enough indication amongst my sources that Bakshi was not an easy nut for the babus to crack hence thisBakshi is being called an exception general and there is lot of genuine angst

@shauryatwhile in general - agree the reason the distrust is - its not really the politicians - its the damn babus who tip the scales and get their say in even with politicians - if they want to be objective and national interests paramount it needs to include the opposition

Surya - your first point is the crux of this debate. And as Lt General Panag points out - 'what constitutes the merit criteria?' Today, I am ready to go with the decision because NM is the PM and I expect him to take a decision in best interest of the nation. But that cannot be said about the next incumbent - BJP of Congress?

And as you said, its the damn babus. It gives them an opening into hitherto out of bound domain. Till the time we manage to bring overall structural change, my doubts about doing away with seniority principle will remain.

The latest article by Lt General Panag is bang on target - we need wider structural reforms to ensure we've a transparent and robust system in place.

ShauryaT wrote: Rohit: Interesting. I find this lack of "trust" on politicians to make the choice amusing for a democracy. What else is the choice in a democracy, where the political choice has to be the final arbiter? It is the politician who is accountable to the people. I am completely with you on the deficiencies in the polity and the risks of leaving it to the politicians. However that is the risk we take in a democracy. I guess, you will say some things like security of the nation should not be risked.

Personally, would rather see strengthening of systems to make politicians accountable and transparent, rather than revert back to a system, where politicians do not do their jobs.

But, I was not surprised by your final argument, you have always erred on the side of the forces. Good writeup.

Added: I have my doubts too on the possible factors that went into making that choice and have my reservations on these factors, like you do in the article.

Shaurya - I'm in complete agreement with what you've said.

My concern is that in absence of an established mechanism which is transparent, fair and understood by everyone, such decisions for deep selection become subjective than objective. Yes, there will be element of subjectivity but should be as low as possible.

Manish_Sharma wrote:^ Surya saar Colonel RSN Singh has been saying from the time of General V.K. Singh that congis+chandigarh gang had manipulated the succession line from jj singh's time with his help.

Could it be seen that, govt. is correcting that?

Secondly why there was no such hooopla when robin dhowan was made navy chief ignoring his senior?

1. doing what the Cngress does not resolve our problems

2. unlike the other cases there is a lot of admiration of Bakshi. Trust me if it was someone like Jj or Bikram or Vij or Deepak Kapoor not mch tears would have been shed. I am getting from even AF guys who have served with him - the man is stands out for his no nonsense approach

Lt General Praveen Bakshi, who was superseded along with another senior officer in selection of the new Army Chief, today met Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar and Army Chief General Dalbir Singh Suhag in Delhi amid speculation that he may resign. Eastern Army Commander Lt Gen Bakshi had flown in from Kolkata for the post-lunch meetings. On December 17, the government appointed Lt Gen Bipin Rawat as the Army Chief, superseding Lt Gen Bakshi and Lt Gen PM Hariz, the Southern Army Commander. In the past, Lt Gen SK Sinha had resigned when his junior General AS Vaidya was appointed as the Army Chief in 1983. In April 2014, Vice Admiral Sekhar Sinha resigned when his junior Admiral Robin Dhowan was appointed as the Navy Chief. In the forces, there is no concept of a senior working under his junior. Lt Gen Bakshi is senior by two batches to Lt Gen Rawat when he passed out of the Indian Military Academy, Dehradun. But former military officers say even if Lt Gen Bakshi resigns, he will do that at the end of this month when Lt Gen Rawat takes over as the Chief. Also, there is possibility that he can continue for a few days in January and wait for the government to “rehabilitate” him and then opt to quit. Defence Ministry officials confirmed that the two meetings did take place and the one with Parrikar was a “courtesy call”. There is speculation that Lt Gen Bakshi could be appointed as India's first Chief of Defence Staff, but that looks unlikely for now. To meet Lt Gen Bakshi, Parrikar had flown back from Goa today, where he was campaigning for the assembly elections. The decision to supersede Lt Gen Bakshi has not gone down well with senior officers who have questioned the logic of “ignoring” seniority, especially when Lt Gen Bakshi has held several top positions.

The manipulation of selection to senior positions of command begin from the rank of colonel to brigadier. Super session at this level does not raise any eye brows. It is after all at levels that is hardly considered newsworthy. Once it is done systematically all the way up, the chosen person automatically becomes the Chief of Army Staff as the senior most candidate. The 'Chandigarh lobby' or any other name that one chooses to describe it, is akin to the 'Deep State' for the visible authority of the 'Nation State'. Thus there is a 'Deep Army' to the visible 'Regular Army'. Students of Organisation Theory recognise that there is a visible structure and then there is this 'dotted lines' (management speak for extra constitutional authority) flow of authority and power. It is in the nature of organisations to be structured so. There is no reason why the army should be impervious to phenomenon that seems to afflict all organisations. The motivation for the personnel making up the shadow organisation could be 'power' or 'greed'. But it manages to masquerade itself on a lofty principle that the interests of organisation is too important to be left in the hands of the manager designated for a particular role. In the case of the army, it could even be masquerading as the belief that the post of the COAS is too important to be left in the hands of the politicians. Something has to be done to make sure that the politician is manipulated to choose a successor in a way that seems the most logical thing to do. Because its unseen hand is felt at relatively lower levels of senior command that the person chosen as the COAS is beholden to this network. That sense of obligation translates into subtle changes in preferences in the qualitative requirements for military equipment and the preferred supplier get the order without the slightest whiff of scandal. What is more, the system perpetuates itself where COAS accommodates the requirements of selection from Colonel to Brigadier and upwards in the subsequent years and you have a situation where successive appointments of COAS has the obvious merit of selecting the senior most candidate and hence bereft of any controversy. VK Singh was useful as he was the most eligible candidate in the chain command down below only because he fulfilled the requirement of being able to allow Bikram Singh who in turn was useful only because his ascension allowed Dalbir Singh to succeed him later and so on. VK Singh had to fall in line on the question of his official date of birth which he did as he didn't see any way out of acquescing on the date of birth question to get the promotion that he thought he deserved. Like a good general he made a tactical decision in the hope that he would be able to reverse the course of events through superior strategy, going forward. This is evident from the fact that he never said that the year of birth is what was stated in the army record with the Defence Ministry but confined himself to saying that that the Defence Ministry record 'may be adopted' or words to that effect, for the purpose of promotion to the rank of Major General (or perhaps Lt General, I don't recall exactly as I am typing this from memory of what I read of the Supreme Court order on his appeal for correcting the records). But later on, had second thoughts and he tried to challenge it. Alas, the system was too powerful for him. A new Government aware of all these goings on and its linkages to defence procurement contracts had to break the hold of a cabal which insidiously influences the selection process a beginning has to be made to the practice of senior most officer being appointed as the COAS. Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi might well, have been a victim in the process. That said, who is to know if he had not been preferred over a more meritorius candidate in promotions to brigadier and other ranks upwards all of whom had either quit for lucrative job opportunities in the private sector or allowed to retire in relatively junior ranks?

Surya wrote:2. unlike the other cases there is a lot of admiration of Bakshi. Trust me if it was someone like Jj or Bikram or Vij or Deepak Kapoor not mch tears would have been shed. I am getting from even AF guys who have served with him - the man is stands out for his no nonsense approach

Thanks for explanation, it seems bureaucracy manages their evil ways no matter who is ruling.

Reminds me of movie "Sutradhar", where it was shown bureaucrats can corrupt any honest man.

In a democracy, it is imperative that decisions of the government are held to account and open to the degree possible. What we need is not just media questioning based on hearsay and leaks but a structured process, where these decisions, which is the right of any elected executive can be explained by the government.

We hold a low opinion of our polity - many for good reasons, but we really do not have any choice but to strengthen these institutions. The formal institutionalized accountability and transparency structures are fairly weak. One way to strengthen them is to enable parliamentary committees to hold private and public hearings on top positions. The minister responsible can be part of these hearings. Even without the ability to vote, we would at least start an open process of some type of public disclosures and vetting. These processes can evolve as our polity does. Maybe skip the TV / cameras for public hearings to avoid TRP trappings, if someone is really interested, let them show up in the gallery and then report.

The executive eventually has to be comfortable with the idea that there will be public oversight and eventually even a vote that could block certain executive actions. We need to strengthen the checks and balances architecture of the system. This is one sure shot way to achieve the following.

1. Compel the GoI to make choices2. Let those choices be held to account3. The above two will entail detailing information, rationale and enable transparency

Yes, it can be disorderly, illogical, dorks in the committee, partisanship, corruption, media dances and what not - however some of these things are risks a democracy takes.

The committee idea for appointments, has the following issues.

1. It is closed doors hence not transparent2. Any committee at the end of the day will favor a government majority - it has to. Apart from a check, the other major idea is to promote transparency. A leader of opposition may provide a check that no hanky pinky is going on but democratic accountability is larger than just a check on hanky pinky decisions3. There are some technical issues for example, technically we do not have a leader of opposition today - requires a 10% representation in parliament - no opposition party has it.4. The most important - I want the government accountable for its choices and not hide under the excuse of a committee.

Thought will share some thoughts on the matter. Let these expensive parliamentarians do some work.

The appointment of Lt. Gen Bipin Rawat as the next COAS could reflect a fundamental change on our future warfare of being hybrid, probably in the mountains and specifically will have limited use of our massive plains oriented armored formations. Is fundamental restructuring part of the plan?

Even Kautilya, the acknowledged master who laid down the guiding principles of statecraft during the era of Chandragupta Maurya, would have been befuddled with what has been happening since the days of the UPA to the Indian state and its relationship with its own armed forces today. The naming of Lt General Bipin Rawat as the next Chief of Army Staff defies convention. The decision, which meant superseding two serving Army Commanders, now is certain to change the very outlook of senior commanders in the armed forces in the future.

From ancient times—going back to the Ramayana and the Mahabharata—the epics assert that “a king’s roots are his treasury and his army”. A careful examination of the Mahabharata in particular, when shorn of its myth and poetic fancy, allows us to glean the foundation on which later Indian military theory and practice evolved. In the beginning, the Army was one of the two prakritis (essential elements), but as time went on, more and more elements were added on and the Army sank lower and lower down in the order of importance.

Nevertheless, despite having senapranetras (later known as senapatis), kings retained their supremacy in matters of defence, being the final and ultimate authority when it came to taking decisions. In his superb book, A Military History of Ancient India, Major General G.S. Sandhu writes: “The king, and the other princes, received their early training in niti (politics) and dhanurveda (military science); they were imparted training in both the theoretical and practical aspects of warfare. They were also given intensive training until they gained proficiency in the use of weapons.”

Today, monarchies are long gone, and the people are governed by the state where power is centred in the hands of elected representatives. However, the fact of the matter is that with the reins of power in their hands, the elected head of a democratic government is in a way a modern-day monarch. The main difference from the days of yore, however, is that our decision making officialdom of today know little about armies and what makes soldiers tick, to say nothing of the use of weapons, their deployment, and their use. Since the early 1950s, ever since the political-bureaucratic began to exercise power in Independent India, most of them and those in their immediate vicinity have had little exposure to the armed forces.

The writing was on the wall for Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi three to four months ago when an unseen “dirty tricks department” suddenly became hyperactive. Until then, Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, the Eastern Army Commander, being the senior most among those who had the residual service to make the grade, was seen as the natural contender for the top job when the present COAS would hang up his boots. An Armoured Corps officer, Bakshi had an outstanding record of service, and among the rank and file, the reputation of being a no-nonsense dyed-in-the-wool soldier, who would, it was hoped, ensure self-respect in the armed forces.Four anonymous letters were floated with vague allegations against Bakshi. The “men in the shadows” succeeded in getting a probe ordered into the charges. Interestingly, through his four-year tenure first as Eastern Army Commander and then the COAS, the present incumbent, General Dalbir Singh Suhag had ensured that only his handpicked officers had replaced him as the Corps Commander in Dimapur, Nagaland. It may be remembered that General Suhag had been the 3 Corps Commander for some time and is conversant with that area and its special characteristics. It may also be recalled that it was during this period that he had a DV-ban slapped on him by General V.K. Singh in connection with the Jorhat raid that was reversed by his successor, General Bikram Singh, the moment he took over. Meanwhile, Bakshi’s squeaky-clean image could not be dented and the agencies apparently reported back saying they had nothing to build a case on.

To make matters tricky for the “shadow men”, the Defence Minister, Manohar Parrikar, initially decided to stick to the existing norms of seniority and suggested Bakshi’s name to the Prime Minister’s Office. Suddenly, out of the blue, anonymous missives appeared, ghost written by the “men in shadows”. The government thereupon went in for a relook.

Coming to General Suhag, throughout his tenure as the Army Chief, he has surrounded himself with Gorkha Regimental officers. Various key appointments have been lying vacant for months altogether, as was the case with the Indian Military Academy in Dehradun. The outgoing Army Chief is very close to the National Security Adviser. In the aftermath of the Monand Chandel incidents in May and June 2016, where eight Assam Rifles men and then 22 men from the Dogra Regiment were killed, the NSA had himself supervised the nationally acclaimed retaliatory raid that the then DGMI said took place within Myanmar.

With some sections of the government reportedly keen on picking Lt Gen Bipin Rawat for the job, there was a meeting of common interest between them and the COAS, who too had a high opinion of Rawat, who had been one of his chosen few to command 3 Corps. However, to appoint Rawat, the Ministry of Defence had to go over the head of not just Praveen Bakshi, but also Lt Gen P.M. Hariz, who was the Southern Army Commander in Pune. This, it was then claimed, was done “in national interest”.

The writing was on the wall for Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi three to four months ago when an unseen “dirty tricks department” suddenly became hyperactive. Until then, Lt Gen Praveen Bakshi, the Eastern Army Commander, being the senior most among those who had the residual service to make the grade, was seen as the natural contender for the top job.“In the immediate aftermath of the announcement, the government informally justified Lt General Rawat’s promotion on the grounds that as an infantry officer he had greater experience in handling counter insurgency scenarios. However, this failed to impress critics who pointed out that Bakshi had earlier commanded 9 Corps and served as Chief of Staff, Northern Command, apart from which he also handled Eastern Command, which was as deeply involved with CI Ops as Northern Command. The same could also be said for Lt Gen Hariz, who, like Bakshi, has had a blemish-less record of service and enjoys a first class reputation amongst his peers and his men. On social media and across forums, there was a divide as the Army split into two—those for and those against, mainly on grounds of their service arm.

According to the same ancient texts that hold forth on the role of senapatis and kings, the role of the soldier is clearly defined, stating “The gods send calamities unto those who forsake their comrades in battle and return home with unwounded limbs”. Led by an able administrator, Prime Minister Narendra Modi, the government needs to ensure that the “shadow men” are not allowed to prevail with their choices of who will eventually hold the reins of the Army. By manipulating the system for reasons best known to themselves, the “shadow men” may well have prevailed with their choice of who will eventually hold the reins of the Army, but they have also driven a wedge into a system where men at the very top may forsake their comrades in peacetime. For soldiers do not only fight with courage and valour for country and flag, they fight mainly for the man on their left and the man on their right and at the end of the day, they expect fair play from those at the top. It is imperative that the need of the hour is to dispel the influence of these “men in shadows” and their modus operandi of anonymous complaints, which should be treated with the contempt they deserve. It is now up to Prime Minister Modi, whose destiny it is to preside over the various prakritis that hold this country together to ensure that the Army is kept away from these underhand tactics and each soldier is given the respect and honour due to him or her.

PM Modi, Parrikar to decide on chief of defence staff role next monthhttp://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-modi-parrikar-to-decide-on-chief-of-defence-staff-role-next-month/story-YxoCLa20FltgwwErjaiJkN.html

dinesha wrote:PM Modi, Parrikar to decide on chief of defence staff role next monthhttp://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/pm-modi-parrikar-to-decide-on-chief-of-defence-staff-role-next-month/story-YxoCLa20FltgwwErjaiJkN.html

Article in full:

The mandate for the proposed CDS will be decided by defence minister Parrikar in consultation with the PM and National Security Adviser Ajit Doval. “The new post of CDS will not be used for parking slots for super-ceded generals and a new man will be tasked with the job once work profile is clearly defined,” said a senior official.

Parrikar is currently studying the report of retired General DB Shekatkar on making military more effective with better teeth-to-tail ratio.

The Shekatkar committee has also identified areas where there is redundancy, and downsizing of the military could be undertaken without compromising combat effectiveness.

“For example, a couple of hundred signal troopers had been deployed to listen to radio broadcasts in 1962. This unit is still functional despite it being technologically redundant. Similarly, the National Cadet Corps could be downsized by more than 50% by hiring retired soldiers,” said the official.

After preferring merit to seniority in appointment of Army Chief, the defence ministry is now examining the case for a joint command as a step towards integrated theatre commands.

The army, air force and navy currently operate in silos with each protecting its turf and operations. The ministry now is looking towards creating integrated structures where all three services are synergised towards military operations.

For example, it is proposed that Northern Command could come under one overall commander from any one of the three services, with overall control of all military and air assets. “This does not mean that top level vacancies will be reduced. Only that there would be one overall commander in one theatre and future roles of military chiefs being redefined and refocused. Essentially, the reforms will be close to what has been done in US Armed Forces with tweaking on ground,” said a senior official.

However, top defence analysts are sceptical about the theatre command concept as it not only required dedicated military resources but also command synergy at the cutting-edge levels. According to them, maybe the first step could be formation of tri-services battle groups before the theatre command concept is followed.

“US has global armed presence and hence the theatre command concept works with dedicated land, air and naval assets earmarked for each command. In India, we have flexible air and naval assets that are earmarked as per operational requirement,” said an analyst

The government may assign Lieutenant General Praveen Bakshi, who has been superseded for the post of Army chief, a position of similar stature to be created soon, sources told Mail Today on Tuesday.

Parrikar will meet Prime Minister Narendra Modi by January for a presentation on creation of the post of permanent chairman of the chiefs of staffs committee (COSC) who would be responsible for tri-services issues such as procurement, training and futuristic planning for the military.

Top ministry sources said the government's decision to appoint Rawat ignoring the seniority criteria in the services will prove to be a reform as this will do away with factionalism. Earlier, based on date of birth and seniority, officers could figure out the next service chiefs five to six years in advance and coteries would start forming those in line of succession. "Now nobody would be sure of their future and everybody would be giving their best in their commands for bagging the top job," they said.

Top ministry sources said the government's decision to appoint Rawat ignoring the seniority criteria in the services will prove to be a reform as this will do away with factionalism. "Now nobody would be sure of their future and everybody would be giving their best in their commands for bagging the top job," they said.

Everybody is being invited to brownnose the "top ministry sources", the RM, the NSA and others. In other words, armed forces Chiefs should be beholden to the political class and their politically favoured bureaucratic minions. It's done great wonders for the institutional strength of the IAS and the IPS after all.

Aditya G wrote:If there is anyone who can implement CDS - in any form - it is this government.

My concern in this all is whether the NSA will be happy to cede some of his turf to CDS, especially on nuclear front.

A valid concern. The bureaucracy led by Brajesh Mishra, as he was the principal secretary also has been able to insert itself very smartly in the formal and actual decision making chain. A classic example of the elected not doing their executive functions and instead of using the bureaucracy, gets used by it.

One change that would be welcome is to modify the rules so that, instead of the defense secretary formally responsible for the "defense" of India, it is now the CDS. Rakesh this is your, hey you, do this, do that for the CDS!!

Ramana, while there are exceptions to every rule, Lt Gen Bakshi was commissioned in Dec 1977. The CNS, Admiral Lanba, who is the present Chairman CoSC, is expected to hold that title till his own retirement on 31 Dec 2019 - exactly two years from now. I don't believe Lt Gen Bakshi will still be serving at that time.

In this case, however, Bakshi is understood to have been assured by Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar that the process was under way to appoint him as India’s first tri-service commander, a post that would, at least nominally, place him senior to Rawat. This assurance was apparently conveyed when Bakshi met Parrikar in his office on December 21.

Appointing Bakshi as PCCOS would involve the delicate matter of leap-frogging him above Admiral Sunil Lanba, the current navy chief, who is senior to Bakshi. Lanba is currently the Chairman, Chiefs of Staff Committee, which includes the three service chiefs.

Bakshi is due to retire in the normal course in July 2017. In case the government is unable to clear the PCCOS post by then, it would fall to another officer.

“When he was approved for the rank of Lt General Bakshi had met and requested the then Chief of Army Staff, General Bikram Singh, to be allotted an operationally committed Corps in the North East which could be 3 Corps or 4 Corps. However, his request was not acceded and he was instead given the Command of 9 Corps which is headquartered in Yol in Himachal Pradesh,” said a senior officer.